Whether a person will get deemed license if he has not made application in prescribed format?

However, as regards the Writ Petition preferred by Defendant No. 2-APMC, the Appellate Court has relied upon the provisions of 'Deemed License' and, accordingly, held that, despite the application made by Plaintiff No. 1, if the APMC has not granted the license, then, the Court can hold that, Plaintiff No. 1 is having the 'Deemed License'. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for Defendant No. 2-APMC that, the application filed by Plaintiff No. 1 was not in the proper format and, therefore, the said application was "filed" and he was informed about it. Hence, he cannot be entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of 'Deemed License'. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 2-APMC has, in this respect, also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Shree Shyambaba Cotton Company, Saoner v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Parseoni and Ors., MANU/MH/0552/2012 : 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. 791, wherein, in paragraph No. 7, it was held that,

"If the application is not in a prescribed format, accompanied with fees and information, as required in the prescribed format and as essential under the Act and Rules framed thereunder, nor supplied the documents, as required by the APMC under the Rules, then, the proviso of the "Deemed License" would not come into play, unless the Petitioner shows that he had submitted such application in prescribed format."
18. Here in the case, therefore, no fault can be found with Defendant No. 2-APMC, if it has not granted such license. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 8872, 10221 and 10774 of 2017

Decided On: 25.04.2018

Pune Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti, Pune Vs. Mohammad Hanif Abdul Wahid Shaikh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 524

Print Page

Whether party can made incorrect statements in affidavit in order to make it in conformity with prescribed proforma?

Relying upon the aforesaid Judgment, learned counsel submits that once the
testamentary petition is converted into a suit, provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 and Indian Evidence Act 1872 would apply to civil proceedings.
The defendants thus could not consider the said affidavit of attesting witness filed
in the year 2005 as evidence. Learned counsel submits that in any event, the
affidavit of attesting witness was filed in Form-102 prescribed under Bombay High
Court (O.S.) Rules and thus the plaintiff could not have made any changes in the
said format prescribed by the Bombay High Court rules. It is submitted that in any
event, there was no material inconsistencies or incorrect statement made in the said
affidavit by Mr H. D. Pithawalla and by Ms Dolly Divecha and the same as per the
prescribed format of Form-102 and over and above the same. Mr.Shah learned
counsel for the defendants submitted that in any event even if such affidavit was
required to be filed in any format prescribed, the plaintiff could not have made any
false and incorrect statement in such affidavit. It is submitted that the said witness
was cross examined by the defendants on both the affidavits. The defendants are
thus entitled to point out the contradictions in both the affidavits with her cross
examination.
91. In my view, Mr shah learned counsel appearing for defendants is right in his
submission that even if an affidavit is required to be filed in particular format, even
if the facts of a particular case do not match with the format prescribed and
disclosure of such fact would lead to inconsistency with the format or would
amount to false statement, party is still not bound to follow such format as it
stands. In my view, a party cannot take shelter of such format and can make false
and incorrect statement so as to comply with the format prescribed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 85 OF 2005
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 604 OF 2005
 Jivaji Framroze Tarachand

V
Mr.Minoo S. Mistry 

Judgment pronounced on : SEPTEMBER 25, 2014
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR730

Print Page